[th]FBS SCHOOL[/th] [th]PLAYERS[/th] | |
Alabama | 56 |
Ohio State | 45 |
Florida | 35 |
Miami (Fla.) | 34 |
LSU | 32 |
Florida State | 32 |
Oklahoma | 31 |
Georgia | 29 |
Penn State | 28 |
Texas A&M | 28 |
Clemson | 27 |
Wisconsin | 26 |
Auburn | 26 |
Stanford | 25 |
Notre Dame | 25 |
Washington | 25 |
Tennessee | 24 |
QB: OklahomaRB isn’t even Ohio State in their own conference. Haha
Honorable Mention: Ohio State
RB: Ohio State
Honorable Mention: Alabama
WR: Alabama
Honorable Mention: Oklahoma
TE: Notre Dame
Honorable Mention: Miami-FL
OL: Alabama
Honorable Mention: Wisconsin
DL: Clemson
Honorable Mention: Ohio State
LB: LSU
Honorable Mention: Michigan
DB: Ohio State
Honorable Mention: LSU
Athletic trainers and ACL surgeons thrive at Purdue.I'd say that Purdue is great at developing WRs.
I'd say that Purdue is great at developing WRs.They were.
I'd say that Purdue is great at developing WRs.Minnie is really good at this too.
I'd say that Purdue is great at developing WRs.You'd think so... But in the last 20 years, we've only had 2 drafted, and they were only 5th rounders. Neither hung around the league long at all.
They were.True. I think they will have a pretty strong case for the best wide receivers in the league this year.
I can't name one between like 2004-2017 though.
Now it seems like they are amazing at identifying receivers. I'd like to say they are developing them, but they show up, and are amazing.
True. I think they will have a pretty strong case for the best wide receivers in the league this year.I think it's an open and shut case
True. I think they will have a pretty strong case for the best wide receivers in the league this year.I'm not sure. Obviously we've got the best corps of receivers that Purdue has ever had...
Dare I ask: are we considering a position group especially strong or good based on All-Americans or draft position?I do think that's a good way to look at some things. If your goal is to find a school where players go to "thrive", being named an All-American is a huge feather in your cap. Draft position is less useful, because some players who are great college players may not fit the NFL mold, but again if you're looking for where they best "thrive", the college system that best develops them to be NFL material has to have an impact.
I consider draft position because that is based on performance in collegeThe only point of contention there is that draft position is based on a lot more than performance in college.
considering NFL performance says nothing about NCAA performance
I consider draft position because that is based on performance in collegeEhhh, maybe like 50% of it.
The only point of contention there is that draft position is based on a lot more than performance in college.Unfortunately for them, if they were coming out now, they'd be 2nd-4th round picks, in an attempt to mimic the Wes Welker slot WR teams employ now.
Take Purdue WRs from the early 2000s, John Standeford and Taylor Stubblefield. Neither were drafted. John Standeford set the Big Ten completions and yardage records by his senior year. The next year Stubblefield beat the completions record--and beat the NCAA career completions record, as well as owning Purdue's single-season receiving TD record that year.
That's where you run into problems by including draft position. Both players thrived, but neither had the athleticism or body to be exciting to NFL GMs, so neither were drafted.
Ehhh, maybe like 50% of it.50% is something
Unfortunately for them, if they were coming out now, they'd be 2nd-4th round picks, in an attempt to mimic the Wes Welker slot WR teams employ now.Standeford was an outside WR.
Bad timiing.
Standeford was an outside WR.Was there another long S-named WR at Purdue? Let me look it up.
Stubblefield *might* have gotten a look, but given that he was clocked at 4.75 on his pro day at Purdue... I'm not sure he excited anyone.
Was there another long S-named WR at Purdue? Let me look it up.Vinny Sutherland ended up getting drafted, but he wasn't like either--he was one of those fast shifty guys who could break one on any play. At the combine he recorded a 4.48. He ended up spending a little time in the league as PR/KR, but never really found himself a home anywhere at WR.
Ah, Sutherland. That's who I was thinking of - him and Stubblefield.
247Sports (https://247sports.com/college/michigan/LongFormArticle/NFL-Draft-edge-prospects-schools-with-most-players-147261150/#147261150_10) has ranked the best schools for every position based on NFL draft.good for TCU and the Big 12 - playing defense!
They started with the EDGE position (which consists of OLB's and DE's only- no DT's) - and Ohio State is #1 and Michigan is #2. They look at the last 5 drafts and assign points based on which round every player is drafted.
10) TCU - 3 NFL draft picks (1- 1st rd) - 14 points
Learning about Patterson's 3-3-5 defense is really interesting. They do the opposite of what many try - they want to funnel runs to the outside. Very trippy stuff, goes against everything I'd heard. But it seems to generally be effective.So, either his defense aren't as good now because he's in the Big 12, where it is forbidden to play defense, or his defenses aren't as good now because he was playing a mid-major schedule before and now he's playing a P5 schedule.
His defenses have been up and down, but that's understandable at a program like TCU. They were more often elite pre-Big 12.
Dang! I thought sure you'd pick the choice saying that it's against the rules to play defense in the Big 12.well defense does seem to be optional in the Big 12. Which, by the way can we change the names of these conferences? The Big 12 has ten teams and the Big Ten has 14 teams. Wtf.
Just one disappointment after another today.
well defense does seem to be optional in the Big 12. Which, by the way can we change the names of these conferences? The Big 12 has ten teams and the Big Ten has 14 teams. Wtf.Big 10 and Big Fourteen?
well defense does seem to be optional in the Big 12. Which, by the way can we change the names of these conferences? The Big 12 has ten teams and the Big Ten has 14 teams. Wtf.Look at the Big Ten logo. B1G.
Learning about Patterson's 3-3-5 defense is really interesting. They do the opposite of what many try - they want to funnel runs to the outside. Very trippy stuff, goes against everything I'd heard. But it seems to generally be effective.Do you mean 4-2-5?
His defenses have been up and down, but that's understandable at a program like TCU. They were more often elite pre-Big 12.
Look at the Big Ten logo. B1G.Yeah, but who would they add? They already cheapened the brand by adding Rutgers. I still feel like it's Notre Dame or bust for the 15th team. And then if you need to add a token 16th team, I nominate Cincinnati. It's about time Ohio State had someone in their own state to deal with. Luke Fickell has deep ties in the state of Ohio, he's lead UC to back to back 11 win seasons and top 25 finishes, and he just turned down Michigan State to stay there. It would be nice to see Ohio State have an in-state rival to also deal with on the field and compete with for with Ohio recruits.
The G is a 6. Meaning, expansion to 16 is the goal.
G5 programs that could make it up include Cincy, Memphis, Houston, UCF ....I'm honestly kind of surprised that Houston isn't already in the Big 12.
Look at the Big Ten logo. B1G.yup, and the Big 12 goes to 14
The G is a 6. Meaning, expansion to 16 is the goal.
Yeah, but who would they add? They already cheapened the brand by adding Rutgers. I still feel like it's Notre Dame or bust for the 15th team. And then if you need to add a token 16th team, I nominate Cincinnati. It's about time Ohio State had someone in their own state to deal with. Luke Fickell has deep ties in the state of Ohio, he's lead UC to back to back 11 win seasons and top 25 finishes, and he just turned down Michigan State to stay there. It would be nice to see Ohio State have an in-state rival to also deal with on the field and compete with for with Ohio recruits.The B1G may need to think outside the box for 15 and 16. ND is an obvious target, but there still might be too much mutual animosity for it to be realistic. I would have to say programs in large states with lots of B1G alumni would be optimal. I'm thinking the U of Texas, U of Florida, and UNC. UNC might make the most sense because while still a geographic outlier, it's still the closest to existing B1G schools (it's about 4 hours or so from UMD, and 6-7 from Penn State). UNC and Texas don't have the conference stability that Florida has, but if there is an SEC school that might think about bolting for the B1G - even for a split second - it's UF.
Notre Dame got Brian Kelly from there, Michigan State got Dantonio from there, and Tennessee probably wishes they didn't get Butch Jones from there.I almost spit all over my keyboard when I read this. :hee20hee20hee:
The B1G may need to think outside the box for 15 and 16. ND is an obvious target, but there still might be too much mutual animosity for it to be realistic. I would have to say programs in large states with lots of B1G alumni would be optimal. I'm thinking the U of Texas, U of Florida, and UNC. UNC might make the most sense because while still a geographic outlier, it's still the closest to existing B1G schools (it's about 4 hours or so from UMD, and 6-7 from Penn State). UNC and Texas don't have the conference stability that Florida has, but if there is an SEC school that might think about bolting for the B1G - even for a split second - it's UF.Umm, no. None of this.
Tallahassee and Gainesville both honestly just suck and are FARRRRRR away from any kind of normal civilization. They are in the middle of nowhere. Orlando is an infinitely better city than either of those hillbilly dumpster fires, in my opinion. Orlando has been listed by Forbes magazine as one of the top 5 fastest growing cities in America every single yearHave you lived in any of these 3 cities?
The B1G may need to think outside the box for 15 and 16. ND is an obvious target, but there still might be too much mutual animosity for it to be realistic. I would have to say programs in large states with lots of B1G alumni would be optimal. I'm thinking the U of Texas, U of Florida, and UNC. UNC might make the most sense because while still a geographic outlier, it's still the closest to existing B1G schools (it's about 4 hours or so from UMD, and 6-7 from Penn State). UNC and Texas don't have the conference stability that Florida has, but if there is an SEC school that might think about bolting for the B1G - even for a split second - it's UF.UF is in the SEC. There is no way in h-e-double hockey sticks. FSU, USF, maybe but not likely. ND and another border state, or Iowa State.
Umm, no. None of this.I don't think Texas would ever join the SEC. First of all A&M would try to block them. Secondly, Texas thinks they are too smart for you all in the SEC. Texas has actively been transforming itself into becoming a public academic powerhouse like Michigan or Cal and it already sees itself as a Public Ivy League school. They look down at the SEC. They think y'all are a bunch of dummies. Texas would join the Pac before they joined the SEC.
The realistic options for B1G expansion are limited to these, in order of preference:
1 - AAU schools bordering the footprint
2 - AAU schools within the footprint
3 - ND
So in Group 1, you have Missouri, Kansas, Virginia, Colorado (hmmph), and technically Buffalo (n/a)
Depending on who you add from Group 1, you could extend the footprint further with the likes of UNC, Duke, Utah, or Vanderbilt.
Group 2, you have Pitt and Iowa State
Group 3 is Notre Dame
That's it.
Now, I think the B1G could add Pitt and ND and be perfectly fine.
The options in Group 1 are interesting in pairs - getting Mizzou & KU or Virginia & UNC....that's probably what the conference brass would prefer over a Pitt/ND addition.
But I'd be reeeeeally careful if they're extracting Missouri out of the SEC. If that actually happened, I think some tectonic plates would start shuffling - some big boys would be like stonehenge dominoes falling. The SEC would then go after a Texas or a Texas/OU or UNC/UVA/VT itself.
Anywho, that's how I see it.
Vandy, Florida, and A&M are on that level, and UGA isn't far behind. With UTA and OU in tow, no one would turn down those dollars. It'd be all the dollars.Texas doesn't need the money. They have more money than anyone and they think they are better than everyone. From what I've heard/read, A&M would try to block Texas, and that it's a moot point because Texas isn't interested in the SEC.
Umm, no. None of this.The whole idea that the Big Ten needs to add 2 teams for its next expansion may go out the window if the NCAA changes its rules for Conference Championship games.
The realistic options for B1G expansion are limited to these, in order of preference:
1 - AAU schools bordering the footprint
2 - AAU schools within the footprint
3 - ND
So in Group 1, you have Missouri, Kansas, Virginia, Colorado (hmmph), and technically Buffalo (n/a)
Depending on who you add from Group 1, you could extend the footprint further with the likes of UNC, Duke, Utah, or Vanderbilt.
Group 2, you have Pitt and Iowa State
Group 3 is Notre Dame
That's it.
Now, I think the B1G could add Pitt and ND and be perfectly fine.
The options in Group 1 are interesting in pairs - getting Mizzou & KU or Virginia & UNC....that's probably what the conference brass would prefer over a Pitt/ND addition.
But I'd be reeeeeally careful if they're extracting Missouri out of the SEC. If that actually happened, I think some tectonic plates would start shuffling - some big boys would be like stonehenge dominoes falling. The SEC would then go after a Texas or a Texas/OU or UNC/UVA/VT itself.
Anywho, that's how I see it.
The whole idea that the Big Ten needs to add 2 teams for its next expansion may go out the window if the NCAA changes its rules for Conference Championship games.That would be a terrible idea. I like the divisions. If you can't win your division then you don't deserve to go to the CCG imo. And I hate the idea of a rematch. What if Ohio State and Michigan finish #1 and #2 in the conference- that game is the last game of the season every year. I for one wouldn't want to see a rematch. It's already been settled on the field the week before.
The Big Ten may decide to ditch its divisions and just have the top 2 teams go to the CCG. In which case, they may expand to 15 only if the right candidate is willing and available. No need to add #16 to balance out the divisions.
I don't think Texas would ever join the SEC. First of all A&M would try to block them. Secondly, Texas thinks they are too smart for you all in the SEC. Texas has actively been transforming itself into becoming a public academic powerhouse like Michigan or Cal and it already sees itself as a Public Ivy League school. They look down at the SEC. They think y'all are a bunch of dummies. Texas would join the Pac before they joined the SEC.I'm pretty sure that you are right about Texas. They have thought about Pac membership a lot over the years, I think. And, as I understand it, they do not want to be part of the SEC.
yup, and the Big 12 goes to 14What four teams should we add?
What four teams should we add?Careful what you wish for Fearless will start a Welcoming Nebraska Thread that will last 2 Years.
Nebraska and what other three?
Would OU ever make a move without Texas? If not, isn't that sort of lame? Put on your big-boy pants.I’d bet they’d go to the SEC if the money was right. Texas recruiting is vital to OU. As long as A&M is there and they’ll play games in Texas every year I’d think OU would do it.
Would OU ever make a move without Texas? If not, isn't that sort of lame? Put on your big-boy pants.I posted earlier that I didn't understand your post. Somehow, I missed the "If not" part of it.
The outrage that the 5th-ranked team might secretly be the best, I think.I don't think that was a problem last season anyway.